A Dangerous Retreat From The War Of Ideas

Within the past week, Homeland Security released the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, and Defense Department released the Quadrennial Defense Review. These are major reports designed to drive policy for the next few years. Yet reading through the two of them, there seems to be something missing - like any mention of the threat from "Islamic" terrorists. Indeed, other than a mention of al Qaeda and generic "terrorists," the word "Islam" and its derivations do not appear in either report.

This is PC madness. It is wishing the problems away. We will never - repeat never - win the war against Islamic terrorism unless and until we engage in the war of ideas against the ideology driving that terrorism. I criticized Bush for only engaging in the war of ideas half heartedly. But that is a half more than Obama has done. Obama has completely retreated from the war of ideas. That is a dangerous retreat indeed, as to quote former terrorist Dr. Tawfiq Hamid, "the civilized world ought to recognize the immense danger that Salafi Islam poses; it must become informed, courageous and united if it is to protect both a generation of young Muslims and the rest of humanity from the disastrous consequences of this militant ideology."

Let's highlight that for a moment. Let's do a little exercise.

1. Do you know the person pictured at the top of this post?

2. He is a cleric in what denomination of Islam?

3. What is his background?

4. Why is he important?

5. Ideologically, what differentiates him from, say, Zhudi Jasser or David Suliman Schwartz, two prominent Muslims in America?

6. What is different about the pictured man's version of Sunni Islam from . . . let's pick the Shafi'i school of Sunni Islam prevalent in Indonesia during Obama's time there?

If you can answer those questions, that puts you ahead of probably 99.99% of all other Americans. Yet these are questions about which most Americans should have at least some idea.
The Answers:

1. The man pictured at the top of the post is Anwar al Alaki.

2. Alaki is a Wahhabi / Salafi cleric.

3. He was born in America and raised here until he was 11, then went to Yemen for ten years before returning to receive his college education in America. It is not clear whether he was radicalized here or in Yemen, though that would be very helpful to know. Salafism is the prevalent form of Islam practiced in Yemen, but most mosques in the U.S. are owned by Salafists (compliments of Saudi petrodollars) and there is a strong radical element funded through Saudi Arabia on most campuses.

4. Alaki is a member of al Qaeda. He played a central role in both the Ft. Hood Massacre and the attempted slaughter by Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day Undiebomber.

5. Alaki, in full accord with the doctrines of Wahhabi / Salafi Islam, believes Western society is incompatible with Islam and wants to impose sharia law throughout the world. Also in accord with the teachings of Wahhabi / Salafi Islam, he views use of force and terror as legitimate means to that end. Zhudi Jasser and David Suliman Schwartz are Muslim reformers. Both seek modifications of Salafi Islam and both practice forms of Islam that they believe are compatible with Western freedoms. Both are highly critical of Salafism and neither wants to see Sharia law imposed in any state.

6. Salafism is militant, triumphalist, and deeply discriminatory. The Shafi'i school, practiced in Indonesia during Obama's stay there, was far less militant and very open to coexisting with other religions. It is changing now as Salafists are being sent to Indonesia in force by Saudi Arabia. They are radicalizing influence on Islam in Indonesia. That said, historically, terrorists have not arisen from practitioners of the Shafi'i school; they have virtually all arisen from the Salafi / Wahhabi school and schools heavily influenced by Salafism.

If most Americans knew the answers to those questions, it would tell us and the world that we are not at war with Islam, but that we are at war with the ideology of Salafists. It would give standing and recognition to those Muslims who are fighting the overtaking of their religion by Salafits. Given the warning signs put out by Major Nidal Hassan prior to the Ft. Hood massacre, and given that he was a Salafist, it would likely have meant that the warning signs would have been heeded and the massacre aborted months before it occurred. It would place Salafism where it needs to be - in the full and direct light of the public, subject to the strongest force a democratic world can muster, public opinion. It is only that which will force a moderation of Salafi Islam. But if we can't answer those questions, than we can do nothing to "to protect both a generation of young Muslims and the rest of humanity from the disastrous consequences of this militant [Salafi] ideology."

In this, it seems, Obama has thrown not merely us, but all of the non-Salafi Islamic world under the bus. Add that to a national counterterrorism effort in tatters and you have a recipe for disaster - not to mention never-ending war with the law of averages being that one day, these terrorists will succeed in a nuclear attack on America.

Read More...

Summary only...

Much Lizardly Ado About . . . A Little Something (Updated)

Our Watcher’s Council alum, Dafydd at Big Lizards, has tossed down the gauntlet on an issue of supreme importance – our efforts at countering radical Islam in the ideological plane. He wrote a pair of scathing, well reasoned posts taking to task Bret Stephens and Thomas Joscelyn, among others, for criticizing efforts at changing the way our government talks about "radical Islam" and "jihadis." Joscelyn responded in an article at the Weekly Standard, opening thusly:

DAFYDD AT BIG LIZARDS has all sorts of bad things to say about my review of Andrew McCarthy's excellent new book, Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad. I will avoid addressing the snarky insults in Dafydd's post and stick to his attempts at substantive criticism.

Wow. After breaking out the popcorn and ordering a pizza, I sat down to read it all with an expectation of some quality entertainment. But after thoroughly reviewing the arguments and the documents, it became apparent that everyone seems to be missing the forest through the trees. It's not much ado about nothing, but it certainly misses the real issue.
___________________________________________________________

The DHS, several weeks ago, decided to alter the semantics of how they refer to Islamic terrorists. That was a decision that has been much derided by many commentators, including me, perhaps unduly harshly. Dafydd is strongly of the school of thought that supports the DHS approach "in order to open . . . an ideological counterinsurgency." This approach involves using alternatives to the terms such as "jihadi" and "Islamofacism." "Jihadi" means a "holy warrior," which is precisely the status to which those motivated by Islam to commit terror aspire. Calling them "jihadis" elevates them to that status in their eyes and the eyes of the world. Calling them something else would stop that. Dafydd sees such efforts as a nascent step towards engaging in the ideological battlefield. He sees this semantic effort as a way of discrediting the terrorists and driving a stake in between them and Muslims who do not support terrorism.

People in the second school of thought, which includes Mr. Stephens and Mr. Jocelyn, have been highly critical of that approach. They see it as obfuscation and a wholly useless effort in semantics. For those who want to break out the popcorn and enjoy this blog version of the UFC, here are the relevant posts, documents and articles.

January 8 DHS Memo – Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations From American Muslims

March 14 Memo from the Counter Terrorism Communications Center – Words that Work and Words That Don’t: A Guide For Counterterrorism Comunication

Bret Stephen’s WSJ Article – Homeland Security Newspeak

Jocelyn’s book review at the Weekly Standard of Andrew McCarthy’s book, Willful Blindness

Dafyyd’s first post – criticizing Brit Stephens over the DHS memo

Dafyyd’s second post – criticizing Thomas Jocelyn

Jocelyn’s Response in the Weekly Standard

The problem with the topic of this argument is it misses the real issue. We are facing, in radical Islam, an ideology that sees terrorism and the murder of others as supported in the Koran and thus as legitimate tactics to advance their Islamic faith. Dafydd is right, we absolutely need an ideological counterinsurgency. Defeating al Qaeda physically and stopping Iran’s deadly meddling throughout the Middle East are only treating the symptoms. Both could go away tomorrow, yet our nation will still not be safe from terrorism in the long run at the hands of radical Islamists. That is because the ideology underlying "radical Islam" is what has to be countered. And on that issue, we have failed utterly because have never defined "radical Islam."

Zhudi Jasser, former U.S. naval officer, physician and President of American Islamic Forum For Democracy (AIFD) is possibly the most eloquent speaker on this precise topic. He engaged in a debate a month ago with a Saudi cleric that was largely on this issue. I have the entire debate here. If you have not seen it, you need to sit through it. I cannot emphasize that strongly enough. Watch it. It is a crash course in radical Islam and what must be done to counter it. It also gives the Wahhabi view on such issues as wiping out Israel and the death sentence for apostacy.

As Dr. Jasser states, the starting point of an ideological challenge must be with identifying the problem – which in the case of radical Islam are the Wahhabi, Salafi and Khomeinist interpretations – and then attack the theoretical underpinnings. Here is an except from that debate that I have transcribed:

<

The bottom line is that if we do not address the theological underpinnings of the koranic derivation, of the koranic interpretation of bin Laden, of Zarkawi, of Zawahiri and others, we will get nowhere.

There are serious, serious legal underpinnings of Islamic jurisprudence that say in the Salafi tradition . . . that says that if someone leaves the faith, you kill them. . . . We need to address [such interpretations as this] as Muslims. It empowers radicals to kill people. . . . The bottom line is, this is not just psychotic people. . . The reality of the fact is that the Islamic jurisprudence, the Imams that are teaching jurisprudence in . . . Saudi Arabia, Syria, and many of the mosques around the world are spreading a doctrine that teaches that the end justifies the means . . . that occupied people in Israel have a right to kill innocents, that’s not terrorism. That is not Islam. That is radicalism. That is barbarism, and its being done in the name of Islam, but it certainly is corruption.

There is a legal tradition that we have to own up to, we have to reform. . . . Many of us are reformed by the way we practice, . . . but [it is not reformed] in the educational system. So let’s step away from the nice stories of platitudes . . . let’s start . . . separating our spiritual path, separating the moral code and the clarity of our faith from a political movement that uses the name of Islam, uses certain scriptures to [justify their crimes and barbarism]

The only way to [change this] is by us taking them on in their interpretations and spreading literature around the world that contradicts Wahhabism, that contradicts Salafism, and to starts to say that the example of the Prophet had value for his behavior, had value for his morality, but no longer has is it relevant for statecraft and for Islam to have a role in government. . . .

I could not agree more with Dr. Jasser. My problem with Dafydd’s approach is that it goes around the first hurdle – i.e., identifying the sources of radical Islam and their interpretations that allow them to conduct murder and mayhem, and instead engage in semantic denunciations alone. As Marcus Aurelius famously asked:

This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its substance and material? And what its causal nature [or form]? And what is it doing in the world? And how long does it subsist?

From The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Unless we can answer Marcus Aurelius’s questions within the context of radical Islam, it is impossible to engage in a war of ideas, or as Dafydd puts it, an ideological counterinsurgency.

Understand that among those who favor Dafydd’s approach are all of the Wahhabi / Salafi and Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the U.S. Those organizations have spared no expense and no effort to get the U.S. to stop making a connection between Islam, terrorism and jihadism. I fully realize this is not what Dafydd is advocating, but the danger of only going forward on the semantics is that you obfuscate the true nature of the problem and allow the Wahhabists and Salafists off the hook. Their goal is simple – they want to metasticize in the West without challenge. Without the first step of utter and absolute clarity about the Wahhabi / Salafi / Khomeini sources of Islamic terrorism and the specifics of their dogma, mere semantic changes will only further obfuscate the issues – with a net gain to the Salafists.

That said, my criticism of Mr. Jocelyn is no less deep. While he in his article takes Dafydd’s approach to task as useless – with which I now disagree – he, like DHS and the rest of our government, equally does not identify the first hurdle as something that must be done.

If you wonder why that has not happened, rest assured it is not because there are clueless people in our government. Many, if not most, are well aware of the precise problem. It is not hard to surmise that the deliberate obfuscation by the government is because Wahhabi / Salafi Islam is the bloody cult that controls Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has us by the oily short hairs. All the more reason to start drilling in ANWR and start engaging radical Islam in a true war of ideas.

The war is already joined by the Wahhabits and Khomeinists and people like Dr. Jasser. It is an existential war for the soul of Islam. We have every bit as much at stake here as do the world's Muslims, yet we are doing nothing as a nation to help Dr. Jasser win. The single greatest strength of a democratic nation is the critical eye of an informed and concerned populace. Dafydd's belief in changing semantics is fully justified if we join the battle and enlist the populace. It is many years past time that we did.

Update 1: Apparently, this topic has also been the raised over the past few days at the NYT, Hot Air (see here and here) and Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch.

Update 2: Dafydd responded to the above Jihad Watch post here and then was kind enough to do a dual response both to Mr. Jocelyn's article at the Weekly Standard and to this post.

In his response, Dafydd clarifies his thoughts - though the mistake upon rereading his posts was wholly mine. At any rate, Dafydd makes plain that he believes that we need a robust ideological counterinsurgency that challenges the interprative underpinnings of radical Islam.

Dafydd makes several critical points as to what is needed in such an ideological counterinsurgency:

1. We -- by we, I mean everybody who opposes the radical militant Islamists -- must clearly identify the schools, both physical facilities and schools of thought, that teach/preach the radical interpretations of Islam that theologically underpin the Islamic death cults;

2. We must counter those schools and their arguments with alternative interpretations that are just as theologically sound... which means, I am convinced, working with Islamic scholars and clerics who have already been doing this for many years, including (a non-exhaustive list):

The "Quietist" school of Shiism, whose spiritual leader at the moment is Iraqi Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in Najaf;

The Indonesian Sunni organization Nahdlatul Ulama -- the largest Moslem organization in the world with perhaps as many as 40 million members -- which is headed by Abdurrahman Wahid, a.k.a. Gus Dur;

And the Turks, who are currently opening schools around the world that are teaching a non-violent (or at least much less violent) sect of Islam to counter the influence of the Salafist/Wahhabist schools financed and run by radical Saudi clerics.

They have far more credibilty than we; but we must be careful not to buddy up to them too closely, lest we create an obvious line of attack against them by our enemies. Nobody trusts a sock puppet (except maybe Glenn Greenwald).

3. And most important, we must get both State and Defense on board with the program... and also Congress. I'm afraid this will be the hardest task, but it's vital if we're to present a unified front against the enemy. About the only hope would be if the Senate would confirm a "John Bolton"-like nominee as Secretary of State, one who could actually clean house in that wretched, out of control bureaucracy, whose Statethink has swallowed up my second favorite gal, Condoleezza Rice.

I could not agree more with all of the above points. I would expound upon his mention of Grand Ayatollah Sistani and the quietist school of Shia Islam. Indeed, it goes to the heart of the most critical reason for remaining in Iraq and insuring the sovereignty of that nation from the predatory acts of Iran. As I wrote in an earlier post:

The greatest threat to Iran today comes from a democratic Iraq on its border that honors the traditional Shia practice of quietism - i.e., maintaining a wall between mosque and state, to put it in American terms. Iran is a deeply troubled country of 60 million people held under the rule of a medieval theocracy by ever increasing repression. The theocracy itself is illegitimate when looked at in terms of a millenium of apolitical Shia tradition - a tradition shredded in 1979 by Ayatollah Khomeini and his velyat-e-faqi, a new philosophy justifying and requiring theocratic rule. And indeed, the most popular religious figure in both Iraq and Iran is now Grand Ayatolah Ali Sistani, an adherent to the quietist school. This is deeply problematic for Iran.

. . . Since 2003, Iran has won tactical victories in both Gaza and, just days ago, Lebanon. But in Iraq, the theocracy of Iran is facing a mortal threat to its legitimacy and an enticing example of democracy to its deeply troubled populace that, not a decade ago, appeared on the edge of a counter-revolution. . . . Indeed, unless the U.S. leaves Iraq and allows the Iranians to resume their Lebanization of Iraq - something that would happen if troops are withdrawn too soon, as General Petraeus noted days ago in written testimony to the Senate - Iran's theocracy is far more threatened by their peaceful neighbor than by Saddam Hussein or the Taliban. . .

Read the entire post. I have no doubt that if Iran dominates Iraq, you will see the quietist school extinguished following the death of the 80 year old Grand Ayaollah Ali Sistani. Following the 1979 revolution, Iran executed, jailed or placed under house arrest all clerics who still honored the quietist school and who spoke out against the velyat e faqi. Indeed, when Khomeini died, none of the Grand Ayatollah's in Iran were deemed sufficiently wedded to the velyat e faqi philosophy (or in the case of Khomeini's original designated successor, Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, he was deemed too highly critical of how it was being imposed). The current Supreme Guide, Khamenei, was chosen for his position even though he was only a mid-level cleric. This shows both the extent to which Iran will go to impose its system and it shows just how bastardized the system is.

Dafydd also notes the efforts being made by Turkey. As an aside, the BBC ran an excellent article on efforts by Turkey to reinterpret the Hadiths (see here). We will have to see how that pans out, but if it is extensive, it could mark a major step towards an Islamic Enlightenment.

Dafydd sums up precisely what we need to be working towards:

The only remaining question is whether we have the will -- the stomach -- to inaugurate an all-out propaganda campaign to win whatever hearts and minds we can, hoping they will form the nucleus of the only real, long-term solution to our problem: an Islamic Enlightenment, similar to what Christianity went through in the eighteenth century.

As best I can tell, we have yet to engage seriously in any sort of propaganda campaign. Given that it is the most critical aspect of the war on terror, I think we are very far behind the power curve. Lastly, I would just add that a little over a year ago, I wrote a lengthy essay, positing that what Islam most needed was to go through its period of Enlightenment. I explained in that essay why it had not yet happened but how the tools for such a revolution in Islam exist within the religion itself - in the Koran, in the Hadiths, and in the accepted practice of ijtihad. I agree completely with Dafydd - such a revolution is the only true and lasting solution. We need to be doing all we can to support it.

Read More...

Summary only...

A High Squealing Noise & A Voice Of Sanity

Recently, our Senate Homeland Security Dept. issued a bi-partisan report on the dangers of home-grown Islamic terrorism, identifying as did the NYPD of two years ago the fact that Salafi-jihadism is the driver of virtually all Islamic terrorism in the West. That high squealing noise that you hear is emenating from the major Salafist Groups in America who are doing all they can to stop this report's statement of the obvious from becoming accepted and known by the U.S. public. The voice of sanity that you hear comes from Muslim and former U.S. Navy Officer Zhudi Jasser who point out, "To deny that political Islam and its permutations on the internet from Wahhabism to salafism to Al Qaedism to run of the mill Islamism have nothing to do with homegrown terror is patently absurd."
_______________________________________________________

It is no secret that Salafi-Jihadis want to see Western freedoms eroded and the triumph of Islam in the West through the imposition of Sharia law. Towards this end, these Salafist organizations whitewash Salafism and spend incredible sums of money lobbying Western governments to adopt the position, in whole contradiction to the tons of unambiguous evidence, that Salafism is not associated with terrorism and that terrorism itself is not associated with Islam.

Many in the West willingly drink that highly poisoned kool-aide, whether for votes (Pelosi/Conyers), money (academia), a "can't we all get along" fantasy (Homeland Security), a desire not to upset the Saudis who pump our oil (Bush), pure naivete (Pentagon/Hesham Islam), or simply out of marxian multicultural ethos that deems all cultures superior to our own and beyond judgment (Britain). Thank God for the few voices in government, such as Rep. Sue Myrick and Senator Joe Lieberman, and for the "moderate Muslim" stalwarts outside of government, such as Tawfiq Hamid, Zhuddi Jasser, Ibn Warraq and the Center For Islamic Pluralism, all of whom stand firmly and unflinchingly against this Salafi menace. And, of course, there is Dr. Bernard Lewis, the man who predicted the explosion of Salafi terrorism before 9-11, the man who coined the phrase "clash of civilizations" half a century ago, and the man who described the nature of Saudi Arabia's Salafism to America in his books by likening it to the most virulent sub-group within the KKK.

What set off the high squealing noise you hear was Sen. Joe Lieberman's release of a report by his committee on Homeland Security, Violent Islamist Extremism, The Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat. The report relies heavily on a prior work by the NYPD which analyzed how terrorists are made in the West - i.e., a several step process, the common thread at each step being exposure to Salafist/jihadia philosophy and propaganda.

The Senate Report is a bland but fair examination of the problem and the heretofore uncoordinated efforts in America to address it. In acknowledging the role of Salafi Islam as being at the core of Islamic terrorism in the West, it does nothing more than state the obvious. But the obvious is a message the Salafist organizations do not want America to hear - and CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, joined by the rest of the usual Salafi suspects, is in high squeal mode. They have drafted a letter to Senator Lieberman, in essence equating following the evidence of terrorism back to Salafi Islam as being the equal of profiling. You can read the letter here, or you can just read the response of Zhudi Jasser, Chairman of AIFD. It is so eloquent and articulate, I include it here in its entirity:

The American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) announced today that it congratulates the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on the release of its timely and insightful Report on "Violent Islamist Extremism, The Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat.

"The report lays out insightful research of the majority and minority staff and clearly lays out the reality and the vulnerability of the United States to Homegrown Islamist Terrorism citing several credible examples. "

AIFD has previously not only agreed with the conclusions of the NYPD Report upon which this Senate Committee report builds, but AIFD has also previously called upon American Muslim organizations to begin the work of countering the ideologies which feed homegrown terrorism," M. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D, founder and Chairman of the Board, The American Islamic Forum for Democracy.

The Senate Committee report cites many examples of homegrown terror threats. For example, AIFD has commented on the local Phoenix case of Hassan Abujihaad recently convicted of treason in federal court after a raid in London discovered that he was providing a terror cell with classified information on the whereabouts of his U.S. Navy ship to aid an act of terror against American troops.

The report's description of 'the path to radicalization', 'the terrorist internet campaign' and 'the virtual terrorist training camp' is an especially valuable contribution in the setting of mounting evidence of the threat of cyberjihad. The committee's investigation and identification of ways in which the Internet campaign can play a significant role- from 'pre-radicalization' to 'indoctrination' to 'jihadization' to 'the Lone Wolves' is also a particularly valuable contribution to the body of knowledge available today on this subject.

The report's description of the vulnerability of the U.S. and the potential of Islamists to "erode the effectiveness of our national defenses" should provide a particular warning to Americans to step-up our efforts at counter-radicalization.

AIFD would like to highlight the report's recognition of the need to coordinate a communications strategy against the homegrown threat- especially that flourishing on the internet. We would especially bring forward, the report's comment that "no longer is the threat just from abroad, as was the case with the attacks of 9-11; the threat is now increasingly from within, from homegrown terrorists who are inspired by violent Islamist ideology to plan and execute attacks where they live. One of the primary drivers of this new threat is the use of the internet to enlist individuals…"

AIFD is especially flabbergasted and chagrined as Americans and as Muslims by the scurrilous attacks upon this report and the Senate Committee under the leadership of Sens. Lieberman (CT) and Collins (ME) by the signatories to a letter of protest. This letter of protest does little other than expose the obstructionist techniques of the signatory organizations and their refusal to openly address necessary areas of ideological reform necessary in the Muslim community. If these Muslim organizations are unable to grasp the central ideological theological root causes of Islamist inspired terror, they are either participating in a grand denial, protecting the Islamist mindset, or simply obstructing the contest of ideas against political Islam.

Americans should ask - why isn't the work this committee completed not being done by Muslim NGO's? Rather than address the problems which reports like this address, many American Muslim and Arab organizations prefer to exaggerate their own victimization and ignore their own responsibility in countering the movements which this report fairly exposes.

It is particularly alarming that four of the largest Arab-American and Muslim-American advocacy organizations in the U.S (CAIR, MPAC, ADC, and Muslim Advocates) are discounting this valuable report and actually attempting to impede and delegitimize any honest attempt by Americans to dissect the 'real' causes and threats of homegrown Islamist terror. They cite the NYPD Report as "controversial" and "widely disputed" and "discredited" without any supporting evidence or credible sources for such an ad hominem assertion. By brushing off the N.Y.P.D. Report as "shoddy" and "now discredited" by "counter-terrorism experts and federal law enforcement officials … who have [privately} rejected the report's content and methodology" they operate in the typical Islamist fashion of using 'private' 'unnamed' unidentifiable sources with no substantive ideological counter arguments.

Where is the personal responsibility and regard for American security of these Muslim organizations that rather than focus their efforts on counterterrorism recklessly state: "so far … any potential terrorist threat involving Muslims has failed to materialize here in the United States …" They are entirely discounting the tireless and dedicated work of our intelligence and security agencies that have thwarted some thirty plus attacks against America. It seems that the facts in the report they criticize are of no use to them. If our Homeland Security had this type of lackadaisical attitude of denial, we would have most likely seen catastrophes greater than 9-11. When will Muslim organizations become part of the solution against militant Islamism rather than obstacles in any legitimate effort to study and understand its causes? To deny that political Islam and its permutations on the internet from Wahhabism to salafism to Al Qaedism to run of the mill Islamism have nothing to do with homegrown terror is patently absurd.

These four Arab and Muslim American advocacy organizations allege that there are sharp contrasts between integration and radicalization levels in the U.S. as opposed to Europe. Do they not realize how lack of integration and radicalization are gradual processes that take years to reach boiling points? While Muslims may be more integrated in the U.S., the growing examples of homegrown terrorism which continue to virally spread demonstrate that the only difference with Europe may be our trajectory toward radicalization. The end may be the same, but just delayed due to factors unique in America versus Europe.

How can studying a radical political ideology which cloaks itself in religion and which is separatist, violent, and theocratic be an act of discrimination? To us at AIFD, it's a noble necessary act of science, societal analysis, and of national security.

The N.Y.P.D. Report on Homegrown Terror before this Senate report was also a timely wake-up call to all Americans, and particularly to truly moderate Muslims who need to accept ownership and responsibility of this growing threat to Islam and to America.

Press releases and letters of complaint like that submitted by CAIR, MPAC, ADC, and Muslim Advocates on May 14, 2008, actually further the entrenchment of Islamist ideology on behalf of Muslims in the public square. Rather than distance themselves from Wahhabism, salafism, and other Islamist ideologies which feed the radicalism that this report illustrates, these organizations are acting in denial which only obstructs real reform and makes Muslims appear to be in support of these backward ideologies.

In their joint letter these organizations persist in their fear mongering, victimology, and divisiveness stating that the report is, "inaccurately labeling American Muslims as a suspect class …" when referring to the N.Y.P.D. Report's noble aims of protecting all Americans – Muslim and non-Muslim. In fact, if there is any appearance that Muslims are a suspect class, which has yet to be proven, it is most often because victim oriented organizations like CAIR, MPAC, ADC, and Muslim Advocates stay silent against the ideologies which threaten U.S. security. If Muslims were to lead the charge to reform our community and counter Islamist ideology no such label could ever stand in the court of public opinion.Rather than moving toward accepting Muslim responsibility and ownership of the issue, and becoming the Muslim frontline to terror, the focus of these four large Muslim organizations, within the Muslim community, is on stifling all criticism of political Islam, squelching all contradictory ideas, and most of all permitting no dissention. They prefer to label the critic of Islamist movements as outside what they set as the de-facto Muslim mainstream which in reality leaves them outside the American mainstream.The only area of agreement we have in their entire rant concerns American Muslim input into the Senate report. Certainly, it is also our hope that these types of investigations and reports solicit more Muslim input in order to get as many Arab and Muslim American organizations on record as possible about these central ideological issues. It is more important now than ever to get Muslim organizations on record regarding their stances on Wahhabism, Islamism, Salafism, governmental sharia and Caliphism, to name a few. "AIFD would also finally recommend that Muslim input to such investigations include anti-Islamist and anti-Wahhabi Muslims ready to ideologically counter the real sources of Islamist radicalism," adds Dr. Zuhdi Jasser.

For more information about the American Islamic Forum for Democracy please see http://www.aifdemocracy.org/null.

Well said, Dr. Jasser. Dr. Jasser's cause is an extremely worthy one, to take back his religion. When you hear someone ask "where are the moderate Muslims," point them to Dr. Jasser and ask them to give their full support, both in time and money. Better to give one's dollars to Dr. Jasser than to have it recycled through the oil wells of Saudi Arabia only to come back in support of CAIR and the cause of Salafi triumphalism.

Read More...

Summary only...